American Shipping Reinvestment Act of 2011

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that really has been 97 years in the making, legislation to authorize the land conveyances needed to permit the Alaska Railroad to be extended another 80 miles southeastward.

On March 12, 1914, Congress originally approved the Alaska Railroad Organic Act that authorized the construction of up to 1,000 miles of mainline track in Alaska, an effort to tie coastal Alaska with the Interior of my State. During the past century 470 miles of mainline track has been built tying Seward, Whittier and Anchorage located on either Prince William Sound or Cook Inlet with Fairbanks and Eielson Air Force base that is located just south of Fairbanks in the Interior of Alaska. Since 1923 when the current mainline track was finished being installed, there has been a dream by many to extend the railroad further, perhaps all the way to the Canadian border 270 miles away so the railroad could eventually be tied into North America's trans- continental rail network.

Today, joined by my colleague, Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, I introduce legislation to only authorize the land conveyances from the Federal Government to permit the railroad to reach Delta Junction, Alaska.

The reasons for the extension are many.

One reason is that the Department of Defense has large military training areas south of the Tanana River between Fairbanks and Delta Junction--some of the best areas for joint Army and Air Force training in the nation. Access to the Joint Pacific Area Range Complex, JPARC, is currently limited to ice roads in winter, but a railroad extension would permit vehicles to travel by low-cost rail to a staging area for joint military exercises that could be built immediately south of the river, reducing the time and cost of military exercises and permitting year-round training to occur more readily.

Delta Junction, the home of Ft. Greely, is also the site of an anti- missile defense installation that could also benefit from access to rail transportation.

Rail service to the area also would permit existing agricultural, mining and petrochemical industries to obtain supplies, reducing wear and tear on the Richardson Highway, currently the only means of access to the region. It would improve the economics for several mining deposits located along the 80-mile rail extension right of way, and should the railroad ever be extended further toward the border, it would open more than a dozen other known mineralized areas to potential economic development. A railroad would provide safer all-weather transportation than highways given Alaska's severe winter weather driving conditions.

Planning for such a rail extension has been underway for a number of years. In January 2010 the Surface Transportation Board approved the Environmental Impact Statement for the

rail extension. That means that a route already has been identified. This means that the estimate that this extension will require only roughly 950 acres of land to be purchased/conveyed to the railroad is a firm requirement based on an approved rail route and corridor.

The bill I introduce requires the railroad to pay the full appraised value for the land--an appraisal performed by an appraiser mutually acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior and the railroad--unless the government accepts railroad replacement property in lieu of cash payment. It requires the railroad to pay all surveying costs of the land transfer--surveying the largest likely cost of any land conveyance by the Federal Government. The bill models the transfer on the 1982 legislation that conveyed the railroad from Federal ownership to the State-based Alaska Railroad Corp., since there are now nearly 30 years of precedent and practice that should make the land conveyance issues involved in a rail extension clearer and easier to resolve.

This bill since it allows the secretary only to clear a right of way corridor does not impact the lone controversy that I am aware of involving the extension. That is the exact location of a bridge needed for the rail line to cross the Tanana River near Salcha. It is certainly my hope that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers early this spring will follow the route approved in January 2010 and locate the bridge near Salcha, where it was cleared to go by the Surface Transportation Board after a four-year environmental review of the project. But whether the Corps approves the route, or whether EPA presses its concerns about the bridge, the bill will still be needed to authorize the right-of-way corridor over whatever final route wins approval.

For a host of reasons, it makes sense for the Alaska Railroad to be permitted to advance this extension, the first major extension of the railroad's track bed in Alaska since lines were run to Whittier during World War II in 1943. My hope is that this bill will receive a thoughtful review by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and be approved by Congress during the 112th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce three pieces of legislation aimed at increasing the production of our hardest working renewable resource, one that often gets overlooked in the clean energy debate--hydropower. The first bill I would like to introduce today is the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011, cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Risch, Cantwell, Crapo, Wyden, Murray, Begich, and Whitehouse, true hydropower advocates. The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase the capacity and generation of our clean, renewable hydropower resources that will improve environmental quality and support local job creation and economic investment across the Nation.

There is no question that hydropower is, and must continue to be, part of our energy solution. It is the largest source of renewable electricity in the United States. The 100,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity we now have today provide about seven percent of the Nation's electricity needs. Hydro-electric generation is carbon- free baseload power that allows us to avoid approximately 200 million metric ton of carbon emissions each year. Hydropower is clean, efficient, and inexpensive. Yet, despite its tremendous benefits I am constantly amazed at how some undervalue this important resource.

Perhaps it is because conventional wisdom dismisses our Nation's hydropower capacity as tapped out. That is simply not the case. If anything, hydropower is really an under-developed resource--something we certainly understand in my home State of Alaska where hydro already supplies 24 percent of the State's electricity needs and over 200 promising sites for further hydropower development have been identified. There is great potential for additional hydropower development in every state, not just Alaska.

According to the Obama administration, conventional hydropower facilities have the capacity to generate an additional 75,000 megawatts of power--a staggering amount of clean, inexpensive power. Now that doesn't seem possible until you realize that only three percent of the country's 80,000 existing dams are even electrified. Significant amounts of new capacity--anywhere between 20,000 and 60,000 megawatts-- can be derived from simple efficiency improvements or capacity additions at existing facilities. Additional hydropower can be captured in existing man-made conduits and hydroelectric pumped storage projects can help reliably integrate other renewable resources that are intermittent, such as wind, onto our grid.

The Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 seeks to substantially increase our Nation's hydropower capacity in an effort to expand clean power generation and create domestic jobs. The legislation establishes a competitive grants program and directs the Energy Department to produce and implement a plan for the research, development and demonstration of increased hydropower capacity. The bill provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with the authority to extend preliminary permit terms; to work with federal resource agencies and stakeholders to make the review process for conduit and small hydropower projects more efficient; and to explore a possible two-year licensing process for hydropower development at non-powered dams and closed loop pumped storage projects. The act also calls for studies on the resource development at Bureau of Reclamation facilities and in conduit projects, as well as on suitable pumped storage locations. Importantly, by utilizing existing authorizations, the bill does not represent new funding.

It is my hope that as the Senate considers our Nation's long-term energy policy, we can finally recognize the important contribution the renewable resource of hydropower makes, and will continue to make, to our clean energy goals. This legislation is supported by the National Hydropower Association, the American Public Power Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the National Water Resources Association. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2011 to promote the further development of our most cost-effective, clean energy option.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is designed to speed up the development of renewable ocean energy--wave, current and tidal energy--across the nation and also in my home State of Alaska. The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

Since 2004 I have had a strong interest in working to promote the research and development of marine hydrokinetic energy--the effort to produce electricity from waves, current and tidal energy--all of which is indirectly driven by the sun. With 70 percent of our planet covered with water, marine hydrokinetic energy has the potential to be a major source of the world's clean, non-carbon emitting power in the future.

The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated that our Nation's ocean resources could generate 252 million megawatt hours of electricity--63 percent of our entire electricity generation--if ocean energy gained the same financial and research incentives currently enjoyed by other forms of renewable energy.

In the 2005 Energy Policy Act, we started the process of leveling the playing field. In that bill, Congress authorized Federal research and included ocean energy in both the federal renewable energy purchase requirements and the federal production incentives. In the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, we authorized ocean energy research and demonstration centers. In 2008, we finally qualified ocean energy

to receive a renewable energy Production Tax Credit, although unfortunately at a lower rate than some other renewable energy resources receive.

The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, along with a related tax measure that I will discuss next, seeks to increase the industry's growth through additional federal aid. Specifically, the bill authorizes the Department of Energy to expand its research and development efforts on marine hydrokinetic energy via advanced engineering and integration systems. It further authorizes the Department to transfer environmental data throughout the industry in order to expedite environmental assessments and demonstration project approvals. The legislation calls for the creation of three testing facilities to be developed by states, universities, or non-profit entities to test marine hydrokinetic technology.

Importantly, the legislation directs the development of a Federal Marine-Based Energy Device Verification program. Through this program, the government will be able to certify the performance of new marine technologies in order to reduce market risks for utilities purchasing power from new devices. The bill also authorizes the Federal government to set up an adaptive management program and a fund to help pay for the regulatory permitting and development of new marine technologies. This program should help demonstration projects to win permitting approvals.

This bill further amends Section 803 from the Energy Independence and Security Act. This was a provision I had authored in that 2007 energy bill to create a renewable energy deployment grants program for all forms of renewable energy. That program has never been funded because it has been inaccurately perceived as an Alaska-only program. The amendments make clear that the renewable energy grants program is national in scope and is available to assist projects in high-cost areas, where power costs exceed 125 percent of the national average.

The Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011 is very similar to marine and hydrokinetic provisions that won the approval of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last Congress and were included in S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act. This bill, however, is far less expensive, authorizing up to $225 million in aid over 3 years to jump start marine hydrokinetic power-- substantially less than the $3.25 billion authorized by the original legislation. Moreover, the spending authorized in this legislation is offset via the reprogramming of previously un-utilized Congressional authorizations.

Coming from Alaska where there are more than 80 large communities located along the State's 34,000 miles of coastline and major river systems, it is clear that perfecting marine energy could be of immense benefit to the Nation. It simply makes good sense to harness the power of the sun, wind, waves, and river and ocean currents to make electricity. When the fuel is free, it's obviously economic to harness its power.

This legislation is designed to aid development nationally, but also in Alaska where several companies already have proposed test projects in the Yukon and Tanana Rivers and in Cook Inlet, along with Kachemak Bay and Inside Passage waters. Projects are under consideration at Eagle, Galena, Ruby, Tanana, in addition to near Anchorage, with others being considered near Homer and in Southeast.

This bill would allow the marine industry to be on a level playing field with other renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal power, all of which have received large budget increases in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. It would truly help the industry prove whether the technology can achieve the technical success and the economies of scale needed for it to become a major component of the nation's energy mix. I hope that Congress will give real consideration to the Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2011, as well as the other bills that I am introducing today to aid hydroelectric development throughout the country.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011, legislation to extend certain benefits and income tax provisions to energy generated by hydropower resources. This legislation is co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Begich.

We have an incredible amount of hydropower potential in my home State of Alaska. To date, we have almost 50 hydropower projects--in a range of sizes from the 126 megawatt Bradley Lake project to the 7 kilowatt Walsh Creek project--that produce about 24 percent of the State's electricity needs. Alaska is proof that the hydropower resource is not tapped out--not even close. Currently, there are 32 additional hydropower projects, just in Southeast, that are either under construction or on the drawing boards. Statewide there are another 200 areas that have been identified as promising sites for lake taps, run of river, pumped storage and even new hydroelectric reservoirs. With the proper financing, we could keep a dozen hydro construction companies fully employed in the State for a decade or even longer. That is just in Alaska. There are tremendous opportunities in each and every State to further develop this clean energy alternative.

Hydropower, by definition, is a renewable resource. It produces no carbon emissions and through rainfall and melting snowpacks it is able to be replenished. Yet there are some who would deny this important classification to the hydropower resource. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 directs that the generation of hydroelectric power be treated as a ``renewable'' resource for purposes of any Federal program or standard. This reclassification of hydroelectric generation should help to incent the further production of this important and often undervalued resource.

Next, the bill provides parity treatment for hydropower resources in the Production Tax Credit, PTC. Currently, companies that generate wind, solar, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass systems are eligible for the PTC which provides a 2.1 cent per kilowatt-hour, kWh, benefit for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation. Other technologies, such as incremental hydropower, certain generation at non-powered facilities, and wave and tidal receive a lesser value tax credit of 1.1 cent per kWh. The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 eliminates the distinction between the two categories so that all qualified hydropower resources receive the full PTC credit. The bill further expands upon the types of hydropower resources that can qualify for the PTC, allowing new hydro generation, small hydropower under 50 megawatts, lake taps, and pumped storage facilities to qualify as well.

The Hydropower Renewable Energy Development Act of 2011 also carries this expanded qualification of hydropower to the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, CREBS, program.

Because non-profits like rural electric cooperatives and public power providers are not eligible for the PTC due to their tax-exempt status, CREBS was created to encourage these entities to undertake renewable energy development as well. This program has been wildly popular and has been oversubscribed since its inception. There are endless possibilities for increased hydropower production by electric cooperatives and public power providers and they should be given the proper financial incentive to do so.

Finally, the bill provides for a 5-year accelerated depreciation period for equipment which produces electricity from marine and hydrokinetic energy, as well as conventional hydropower resources.

I ask my colleagues to support this hydropower tax legislation. The further development of this untapped renewable resource will help us meet our clean energy goals through the generation of carbon-free, baseload power. At a time of record unemployment, the addition of hydropower capacity throughout the nation will lead to hundreds of thousands of good paying, domestic jobs.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Warner, to reintroduce legislation that provides greater technical resources to the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. Such resources are essential to making sound regulatory decisions and being a more effective technical agency--especially in this era of rapid innovation in the industries under the Commission's jurisdiction.

Specifically, the FCC Technical Expertise Capacity Heightening or ``FCC TECH'' Act would allow Commissioners'' to appoint a staff member--an electrical engineer or computer scientist--to provide in- depth technical consultation, and commission a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the technical policy decision-making process and the availability of technical personnel at FCC. The study would include an examination of the FCC's technical policy decision-making, current technical personnel staffing levels, and agency recruiting and hiring processes of technical staff and engineers, and make specific recommendations to improve these areas.

Over the past several years, I have shared the concerns voiced by the technical community and even some Commissioners themselves about the lack of technical resources and expertise at the FCC. Such concern is warranted. In 1948, the FCC had 720 engineers on staff; today, it has fewer than 270--an astonishing 63 percent reduction--even though the FCC now must face more technical issues concerning the Internet, advanced wireless communications, commercial cable & satellite industries, and broadband. It should be noted that engineering staff currently only accounts for a dismally low 14 percent of the FCC's workforce--in 1948 that figure was more than 50 percent.

A December 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO- 10-79) provides additional evidence of the need for this legislation. The GAO concluded that ``weaknesses in FCC's processes for collecting and using information also raise concerns regarding the transparency and informed nature of FCC's decision-making process.'' Furthermore, the report found the ``FCC faces challenges in ensuring it has the expertise needed to adapt to a changing market place.''

So in a time when citizens are demanding more effective and efficient government and zero government waste, taking such steps as prescribed by this legislation will ensure the FCC is adequately equipped legally and technically to properly craft policy. It should be noted this legislation does not require new staff--it just makes better use of them. In addition, streamlining FCC processes and rulemakings will make sure the Commission keeps pace with the dynamics of the industry it oversees, which is important in order for U.S. companies to continue to be competitive in this global economy.

In a letter I wrote to Chairman Genachowski last year, I highlighted several outstanding spectrum proceedings that I urged the Commission to conclude. The proceedings I mentioned had a common characteristic that concerned me--all of them had been open for three years or longer, and another related proceeding had been pending for well over a decade. This regulatory delay and uncertainty due to the Commission's inaction adversely affects American businesses, which request technical waivers or file petitions to better compete domestically and internationally, and suppresses innovation and the jobs associated with it. We must make sure the Commission is a catalyst to innovation and jobs, not an inhibitor.

Even the general public is aware of the significant technical deficit that exists at the Commission and the importance of increasing its technical aptitude--one of the top public recommendations on the FCC's reform website, reboot.fcc.gov, is to ``require at least one FCC Commissioner to be an engineer.''

This Administration has stressed the importance of innovation being a vital component in our economic recovery, so allowing a shortage of technical

staff to exist at an agency responsible for regulating very technical industries that will be the main drivers for innovation is counterintuitive. The President has also placed a major emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, STEM, education in order to enhance our nation's competitiveness and economic wellbeing in the global economy yet, engineers only constitute 14 percent of the FCC's workforce and, it is my understanding, there is only one engineer in a senior management role at the Commission today--the government's technical expert agency.

This legislation enhances technical resources at the FCC so it will be better equipped and more agile to address the ever-changing technical landscape from a regulatory perspective. If it isn't, our nation's technical leadership in this area will continue to erode and it will be even more difficult to lay the proper policy foundation necessary to meet future telecommunications needs. It is also an essential component to execute the FCC's recently released National Broadband Plan, which includes several technically complex initiatives.

Last Congress, several technical organizations expressed support for the legislation--the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Society of Broadcast Engineers, Association for Computing Machinery, and the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers. Also, prominent individuals in this field, such as Vint Cerf, and former Senior FCC Technical Officials Dale Hatfield, Dave Farber, and Robert Powers support the legislation.

In the past, Chairman Genachowski has stated ``the country expects the FCC to be an expert agency.'' Being an expert agency starts with having the technical expertise to comprehensively understand and examine the issues that are within its jurisdiction and also acting on those issues in a timely manner. If it doesn't, our nation's technical leadership in telecommunications could continue to erode due to regulatory bottlenecks that are created at the Commission from unresolved proceedings and petitions. Removing the bottlenecks that exist through streamlining processes and removing bureaucracy will reduce government expenses and waste over the long term.

This bill takes steps toward properly addressing glaring technical deficiencies at the Commission, which left unaddressed could continue to hamper American innovation and competitiveness. This is absolutely critical given how rapidly technologies are changing and the implications that regulation could have on the underlying technical catalysts of innovation. That is why I sincerely hope that my colleagues join Senator Warner and me in supporting this critical legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with Senator Merkley that will provide the President of the United States with emergency powers to aggressively reduce the Federal Government's demand for energy.

The Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will be an additional tool to address rapidly rising energy prices by reducing our country's demand for oil. The political instability in the Middle East reminds us that this region, which holds the largest reserves of oil in the world, has had profound implications on our country's economy by dramatically affecting the price of oil. Although the attention has been on potential supply disruption, our country also consumes nearly 17 million barrels of oil per day and through aggressive measures the Federal Government can lead our country in reducing its energy bill, curtailing its consumption of oil, and reducing the price of oil for consumers.

As we encounter these price spikes, some have called for a release of oil from our country's strategic petroleum reserve. The fact is prior to releasing our country's strategic reserves we must develop policies that prioritize the Federal Government's consumption of these critical oil supplies. The Federal Government can reduce nonemergency travel, reduce congestion on the roads by providing flexible work hours, decrease the use of oil in heating and cooling buildings, and work with local and state governments to cut consumption as well. We must develop a strategic petroleum strategy that reflects the fact that prices are dictated by both supply and demand and the Strategic Petroleum Demand Response Act will address the demand side of the equation.

Since the start of the year the price for West Texas Intermediate has increased by 16 percent and the week of February 28 encountered the second highest net increase in gasoline prices in our country's history. While I strongly believe that we need to develop specific long-term strategies that build on the success of fuel economy standards and reduce our consumption of oil, this legislation will allow the President to take immediate and decisive action to address any energy crisis through both supply and demand.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation along with Senators Landrieu, Merkley, Brown of Massachusetts, and Enzi, titled the Small Business Contracting Fraud Prevention Act of 2011.

In the past year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has identified vulnerabilities and abuses in virtually all of the SBA's contracting programs, including the 8(a) Business Development Program, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program, and the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business, SDVOSB, program. Our legislation attempts to remedy the spate of illegitimate firms siphoning away contracts from the rightful businesses trying to compete within the SBA's contracting programs.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I take very seriously our responsibility of vigorous oversight. That is why, last December, Senator Landrieu and I sent a letter to the SBA highlighting the recent press headlines and GAO reports of fraud and abuse that have plagued the Agency's contracting programs. That letter stated unequivocally that our Committee's first priority this Congress is ensuring that ALL of the SBA's contracting programs are running efficiently, effectively, and free of exploitation. Adopting this critical small business legislation is an effective first step at ensuring all small businesses are competing fairly and honestly within the Federal marketplace.

As recently as Saturday March 12, the Washington Post, as part of an ongoing investigation, published an article titled, ``DC insiders can reap fortunes from federal programs for small businesses.'' This article states ``Government officials were not monitoring contracts for compliance with rules.'' The report exposes a glaring deficiency in contract oversight. Moreover, an SBA spokesperson is quoted as saying the SBA ``long ago transferred that authority to the Pentagon and other agencies.'' This hands-off attitude is unacceptable, and as I told the SBA Deputy Administrator at a recent Small Business Committee hearing, the ultimate authority for monitoring fraud lies with the SBA.

This legislation contains recommendations both from the SBA Inspector General and the GAO for combating these reports of fraud and addresses vulnerabilities in the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned small business program, the HUBZone program, and the 8(a) program. Additionally, the bill will work to change the culture at SBA to make the process of suspensions and debarments more transparent.

In order to effectively execute the small business contracting programs, the SBA needs a comprehensive framework to provide effective certification, continued surveillance and monitoring, and robust enforcement throughout the SBA's contracting portfolio. This bill aims to increase criminal prosecutions as well as suspension and debarments for businesses found to have attained contracts through fraudulent means, and requires the SBA to submit a report to Congress annually detailing the specific data on all suspensions, debarments, and cases referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecutions.

To that end, the SBIR bill we are now debating on the Senate floor, includes stringent oversight and fraud prevention measures, requiring Inspectors General of participating Federal agencies to establish fraud detection measures, coordinate fraud-related information sharing between agencies, and provide fraud prevention related education and training to agencies administering the programs, among other initiatives.

As a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with the Chairman, Senator Rockefeller, in developing this language following a 2009 committee investigation and hearing on the subject of fraud in the SBIR program. My amendment goes even further and provides the SBA more stringent oversight capacity across all the SBA contracting programs. It is SBA's duty to utilize every fraud prevention measure at its disposal and this amendment puts the tools in place to punish the bad actors that have infiltrated the SBA contracting programs.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This bill makes important changes that will increase availability and reduce cost of catastrophic insurance for homeowners in California and other earthquake-prone Sstates.

The tragedy and devastation of the recent 9.0 earthquake in Japan was a real wakeup call for many of us. You see, the people of Japan are keenly aware of the risks of earthquakes. Every year, thousands of people participate in earthquake drills, and their building codes are the most advanced in the world. Japanese seismologists have the most sophisticated technology and monitoring systems. But all of this did little to protect them from an earthquake of this magnitude.

The people of California and much of the West Coast face a similar risk. The United States Geological Survey predicts a 99.7 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 earthquake will strike in California in the next 30 years. The agency also predicts a 46 percent chance that a magnitude 7.5 percent or higher earthquake will strike California in the next 30 years.

The 2008 ShakeOut Scenario conducted by the US Geological Survey and FEMA modeled a 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andres Fault. Though that quake was only 1/10th the size of the recent event in Honshu, Japan, FEMA estimated that a 7.8 earthquake in Los Angeles would result in 2,000 deaths and an economic loss of $213.3 billion.

The simple fact is that we cannot prevent earthquakes, so we must be prepared in the event one does occur. That is the only way we will be able to respond and recover quickly.

That is why I am introducing the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act. This legislation allows non-profit state-run disaster insurance programs to receive federal guarantees if they need access to credit in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. Access to credit is critical in the immediate aftermath of disasters because the market will likely be disrupted and private institutions will be reluctant to lend the large sums necessary to facilitate a quick and meaningful recovery.

This Federal guarantee will be limited. The Secretary of Treasury must certify that recipients of each of the loan guarantee are able to repay debts within a reasonable timeframe. Moreover, my legislation ensures that the cost of the program is born by state programs, not the federal taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that my bill comes at no cost to the taxpayer.

But this legislation is about more than just access to credit--it will guarantee homeowners have access to affordable earthquake insurance coverage. This means homeowners will be able to quickly rebuild in the aftermath of an earthquake.

This legislation is necessary because most homeowner insurance policies do not cover earthquakes. In California, for instance, most homeowner insurance policies cover fire damage but not damage caused by earthquakes.

As a result, homeowners are often put in the position of either having to purchase expensive supplemental insurance or leaving their homes uninsured against these risks.

In order to help promote coverage for these risks, many states and the Federal Government have set up supplemental insurance programs that offer this coverage at affordable rates.

At the Federal level, the National Flood Insurance Program offers flood insurance to residents living in flood plains where private insurance is unavailable or too expensive.

Similar State-level programs exist in California, Florida, Texas, and other states to help residents protect their homes against catastrophic disasters. In my state, The California Earthquake Authority, CEA, was set up after the devastating 1994 Northridge earthquake to make earthquake insurance more affordable.

Unfortunately, many of these programs are not fully utilized. The California Earthquake Authority insures 70 percent of homeowners who purchase earthquake insurance in my state, but only 770,000 homeowners in California opted to buy such insurance. That means only 12 percent of Californians will be covered up if an earthquake hits.

The reason for such low use in that premiums and deductibles remain too high for the average consumer. A policy covering a $400,000 home and $60,000 of its contents costs an additional $1,105 per year, and that's on top of normal homeowners insurance. Even worse, with such high deductibles, policyholders must suffer near total collapse before they receive any payout. For most, this just isn't a good deal.

The reason for high-cost, high-deductible policies is that the CEA is forced to spend nearly $200 million each year to purchase reinsurance. This ensures that in the event of a major catastrophe, the CEA will still be able to pay out all of its claims. It is good policy for the CEA to incur this expense, and I commend their responsible business practices.

However, since 1994 the California Earthquake Authority has paid $2.5 billion in reinsurance premiums and only received back $250,000 in claims. It doesn't take a savvy businessman to see this isn't a good investment. But with minimal changes to federal law, the CEA and other state-run insurance programs can drastically reduce the

need for expensive reinsurance and substantially decrease the cost of their products.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act makes these changes, allowing programs like the California Earthquake Authority to access sufficient capital following a disaster.

Let me be clear: this is not a bailout or a handout for states. The California Earthquake Authority is independent from the state and financially stable.

This bill would increase insurance coverage in California and the rest of the country and help consumers deal with losses that will occur when the next major disaster strikes.

Over the first 5 years this legislation is in effect, nearly half a billion dollars in reinsurance costs would be saved and passed along to consumers.

The California Earthquake Authority could cut premiums by 30 percent or deductibles by 50 percent.

This could result in at least 700,000 new California homeowners purchasing earthquake insurance.

Following major disasters, the federal government spends millions of dollars, and often billions, cleaning up the mess.

Katrina cost FEMA $7.2 billion.

The Northridge earthquake cost FEMA $7 billion.

Hurricane Andrew cost FEMA $1.8 billion.

By enacting the Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act and increasing the number of individuals with insurance, the cost of disaster recovery to the Federal Government could be substantially lower.

This is because FEMA cannot make payments to individuals who have insurance coverage. Therefore, every family that purchases earthquake insurance as a result of this bill, is one less family that FEMA may have to support when disaster strikes.

The bottom line is this: the next big earthquake is coming and we are not prepared for it. Families need to make sure they have earthquake preparedness plans, and homeowners need to evaluate the best ways to protect their homes. Structures need to be strengthened and all new buildings must be built to the highest standards. The Federal Government must also do its part, to help facilitate this preparedness.

The Earthquake Insurance Affordability Act will make great strides to help our country prepare for a major earthquake, and it does so without burdening the federal taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to quickly adopt this critical piece of legislation and help us better prepare for tragedy.

Mr. President, today Senator Kyl and I are introducing two bills that will assist with alleviating the costs of illegal immigration for State and local governments--the SCAAP Reauthorization Act and the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011.

We are joined by Senators McCain, Schumer, Boxer, and Hutchison.

Immigration is a federal responsibility, as is securing the Nation's borders. When the Federal Government fails to prevent illegal immigration, as it has for some time now, it needs to take responsibility for the consequences of this failure.

However, the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens who commit crimes in our country has fallen largely to the States, and it weighs heavily on them, especially during this time of economic uncertainty. Last year, the State of California spent an estimated $1 billion to incarcerate criminal aliens.

Understanding the expenses that States and localities bear, Congress enacted the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control Act. The program was designed to help reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, and was last reauthorized in 2006 as part of a Department of Justice Reauthorization bill. The SCAAP Reauthorization bill that I am introducing today will reauthorize the program for an additional four years, until fiscal year 2015.

The second bill that we are introducing today is necessary to fix a switch in interpretation by the Justice Department.

Prior to 2003, the Department of Justice interpreted the SCAAP statute to include reimbursement to States and localities for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who have been accused or convicted of State and local offenses, and have been incarcerated for a minimum of 72 hours. However, in 2003, DOJ changed its interpretation, and began limiting reimbursement to the amount States and localities spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens for at least 4 consecutive days.

Reimbursing States and localities only for the costs when a criminal alien is convicted and incarcerated for 4 consecutive days significantly undermines the goal of SCAAP that States and localities should not bear the burden of a broken Federal immigration system. The actual costs of this failed Federal system begin when these aliens are charged with a crime, transported, and incarcerated for any length of time.

This narrow interpretation by the Justice Department is even more devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for SCAAP represents a 59 percent reduction below the fiscal year 2010 level and is far short of meeting the actual reimbursement costs of most States. As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. In 2009, Los Angeles County alone spent $116.6 million to house undocumented felons and received only $15.4 million in reimbursement payments.

The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011 will fix this problem by making it clear that States can be reimbursed for the full costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors.

When the Federal Government does not reimburse States and local governments for the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens, it is at the expense of local services and law enforcement. American communities simply cannot afford to shoulder the weight of our immigration policies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Graham to introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2011, a bill that will curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important health and safety information hidden from the public. As we recognize Sunshine Week, this bipartisan, commonsense measure is an important step to improving transparency in our

courthouses by requiring judges to consider public health and safety before permitting secrecy agreements.

This problem of court secrecy has been occurring for decades, and most often arises in product liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted from a defect in one of its products. The injured party often faces a large corporation that can spend a virtually unlimited amount of money defending the lawsuit, prolonging the time it takes to reach resolution. Facing a formidable opponent and mounting medical bills, a plaintiff often has no choice but to settle the litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing information disclosed during the litigation.

Plaintiffs get a respectable award, and the defendant is able to keep damaging information from getting out. But the American public incurs the loss because they remain unaware of critical public health and safety information that could potentially save lives.

This concern about excessive secrecy is warranted by the long history of tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, and others settling with victims and using the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American people from future health and safety harms. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company information, as well as personal identifying and classified information. This legislation makes sure such information is protected. But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used for the sole purpose of hiding damaging information from the public, to protect a company's reputation or profit margin.

One of the most famous cases of abuse of secrecy orders involved Bridgestone/Firestone tires. From 1992 to 2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires caused accidents across the country, many resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It wasn't until 1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. By then, it was too late. More than 250 people had died and more than 800 were injured as a result of the defective tires.

If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were just an aberration, one might argue that there is no urgent need for legislation. But, unfortunately, the list of abuses goes on. There is the case of General Motors. Although an internal memo demonstrated that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving trucks with these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders, and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued.

More recently, the world's largest automaker, Toyota, has faced a barrage of litigation relating to its recall of over 8 million cars due to sudden unintended acceleration problems, causing more than eighty deaths. After years of lawsuits, Congressional oversight hearings, and Toyota's efforts to keep settlements and product information secret, a California Federal judge finally made public thousands of previously sealed documents, noting that ``the business of this litigation should be in the public domain.'' Had a judge been required to weigh the public's interest in health and safety, as this legislation would require, perhaps we would have known more about the risks sooner and some of those lives could have been saved. Until we put the public interest on par with the interests of private litigants, public health and safety will remain at risk.

This very issue is currently before a Federal judge in Orlando, FL. There, the court is faced with deciding whether AstraZeneca can keep under seal clinical studies about the harmful side effects of an antipsychotic drug, Seroquel. Plaintiffs' lawyers and Bloomberg News sued to force AstraZeneca to make public documents discovered in dismissed lawsuits. In 2009, the court unsealed some of the documents at question, but denied requests to release AstraZeneca's submissions to foreign regulators and sales representatives' notes on doctors' meetings. Despite a recent $68.5 million settlement, continued efforts to unseal crucial documents proved unsuccessful. This is exactly the sort of case where we need judges to consider public health and safety when deciding whether to allow a secrecy order.

We are mindful of the risks to public health and safety that court secrecy orders can pose in the wake of last year's horrific BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As the parties continue to fight over crucial documents, injured parties continue to accept secret settlements. We can only hope that information vital to public health and safety, which could protect against the next disaster, is not being shielded from us as well.

The examples go on and on. At a 2007 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Johnny Bradley Jr. described his tragic personal story that demonstrates the implications of court endorsed secrecy. In 2002, Mr. Bradley's wife was killed in a rollover accident allegedly caused by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating the case, his attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design defects. Through aggressive litigation of protective orders and confidential settlements in cases prior to the Bradleys' accident, Cooper had managed to keep the design defect documents confidential. Prior to the end of Mr. Bradley's trial, Cooper Tires settled with him on the condition that almost all litigation documents would be kept confidential under a broad protective order. With no access to documented evidence of design defects, consumers continue to remain in the dark about this life-threatening defect.

In 2005, the drug company Eli Lilly settled 8,000 cases related to harmful side effects of its drug Zyprexa. All of those settlements required plaintiffs to agree ``not to communicate, publish or cause to be published . . . any statement . . . concerning the specific events, facts or circumstances giving rise to [their] claims.'' In those cases, the plaintiffs uncovered documents which showed that, through its own research, Lilly knew about the harmful side effects as early as 1999. While the plaintiffs kept quiet, Lilly continued to sell Zyprexa and generated $4.2 billion in sales in 2005. More than a year later, information about the case was leaked to the New York Times and another 18,000 cases settled. Had the first settlement not included a secrecy agreement, consumers would have been able to make informed choices and avoid the harmful side effects, including enormous weight gain, dangerously elevated blood sugar levels, and diabetes.

There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by State or Federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Beyond Bridgestone/Firestone, General Motors, Toyota, Seroquel, BP, Cooper Tire, and Zyprexa, secrecy agreements have also had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products and drugs to remain in the market. And those are only the ones we know about.

While some judges have already begun to move in the right direction by giving serious weight to public health and safety, we still have a long way to go. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require Federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that in any proposed secrecy order in a case pleading facts relevant to public health and safety, the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety.

Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine--by making a particularized finding of

fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies.

This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board, and it does not place an undue burden on judges or on our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public. Since last Congress, we have made changes to make absolutely clear that this would apply only to those cases with facts relevant to public health and safety, and to ensure that there is no undue burden on judges or our courts. The time to focus some sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I am honored to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator John Barrasso, in introducing a bill essential to enhancing the delivery of mental health services to our senior citizens, The Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2011. We are pleased to be joined by Sens. Sherrod Brown, Inouye, Tim Johnson, Begich, and Durbin in this effort.

Currently, there are limitations on the types of mental health practitioners who may be reimbursed for services in the Medicare program. Our legislation permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for their services, and it pays them at the rate of clinical social workers. With this legislation, seniors will have more opportunities as part of their Medicare benefit to access professional mental health counseling assistance.

Throughout the United States there are approximately 77 million older adults living in 3,000 so-called ``mental health profession shortage areas.'' Moreover, 50 percent of rural counties have no practicing psychiatrists or psychologists. Seniors living in these areas will be the primary beneficiaries of our efforts.

Mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists are often the only mental health providers in some communities, and yet presently they are not recognized within the Medicare program appropriately. These therapists have equivalent or greater training, education and practice rights as some existing provider groups that can bill for their services through Medicare.

Additionally, other government agencies, including The National Health Service Corp, the Veteran's Administration and TRICARE, already

recognize these mental health professionals and reimburse for their services. We need to utilize the skills of these providers and ensure that seniors have access to them. These professionals play a critical role in the delivery of our nation's mental health care.

In Oregon, the passage of this legislation will focus the talents of over 2,000 additional, qualified providers on the mental health issues of one of our most vulnerable populations. This represents a common sense approach to relieving a persistent and chronic healthcare workforce shortage.

I would also like to take a moment to recognize the contributions of one of our former colleagues in the Senate who led our efforts in the last Congress to pass similar legislation. Sen. Blanche Lincoln was a strong advocate for health policies that benefited seniors and those in rural areas. This bill is a testament to her decade long commitment to these issues and her unflagging support for those in need of mental health care in underserved areas.

Finally, I commend our mental health professionals nationwide, for their dedicated work and efforts, and I encourage passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce Wilderness legislation to protect two of Oregon's natural treasures. This bill is a reintroduction of legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and I am pleased that Senator Merkley is again joining me in cosponsoring this legislation. Significant progress was made in the last Congress in moving the bill towards passage, but unfortunately it failed to get passed before the Congress ended. The legislation I introduce today reflects the work I undertook with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Bureau of Land Management to prepare the bill for markup in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness Act of 2011 will do more than simply protect these areas. It will also help Oregon's economy, because visitors from all over the world come to my State to experience first-hand the unique scenic beauty of place like the lands preserved by this bill.

This legislation will consolidate what is currently a splintered ownership of land in this area and protect 17,340 acres of new Wilderness along the Lower John Day River. This is even more Wilderness than originally in the legislation I introduced in the last Congress. Thanks to an additional land exchange it was possible to add additional lands to the Wilderness proposal. The fractured land ownership in this area makes it difficult for visitors to fully appreciate these areas when they hike, fish or hunt there because of the scattered and misunderstood lines of private and public ownership. This bill will solve that problem and make these lands more inviting to visitors while giving the landowners more contiguous property to call home.

The area in question is stunning. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposals encompass dramatic basalt cliffs and rolling hills of juniper, sagebrush and native grasses. These new areas build on the desert Spring Basin Wilderness that was established last Congress as a result of legislation I introduced, and are located directly across the John Day River from Spring Basin.

With 500 miles of undammed waters, the John Day River is the second- longest free-flowing river in the continental United States and is a place that is cherished by Oregonians. The Lower John Day Wild and Scenic River offers world-class opportunities for outdoor recreation as well as crucial wildlife habitat for elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep and native fish such as salmon and steelhead trout. Through land consolidation between public and private landowners, this bill will allow for better management and easier public access for this important natural treasure. With the current fragmentation of public and private land ownership in the area, river campsites are limited. Many Federal lands among them can't be reached by the hikers, campers and other outdoors recreationists who could most appreciate them. With the equal- value land exchanges included in this bill, public lands would be consolidated into two new Wilderness areas. This would enhance public safety, improve land management, and increase public access and recreational opportunities. This solution will create an incredible, new heritage for public lands recreationists

who are an important factor in keeping Oregon's economy healthy and thriving.

Rafters of the John Day River can attest to the need for more campsites and public access to the Cathedral Rock area. Backcountry hunters will be able to scan the hillsides for elk, deer and game-birds without having to worry about accidentally trespassing on someone's private land. Anglers will be able to access nearly 5 miles of the John Day River that today are only reachable from privately owned lands. Likewise, such a solution ensures that local landowners can manage their lands effectively without running across unwitting trespassers.

One good example of the value of these land swaps is Young Life's Washington Family Ranch. This Ranch is home to a Christian youth camp that welcomes over 20,000 kids to the lower John Day area each year. This bill sets out private and public land boundaries that on the ground and these boundaries create a safer area for campers on the Ranch; this serves the children who visit the area well and ensures the continued viability of the Ranch, which, in turn, provides big economic dividends to the local community.

The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness proposal is described as ``win-win-win'' by many stakeholders--nearly 5 miles of new river access for the public and protected land for outdoor enthusiasts; better management for private landowners and public agencies; and important habitat protections for sensitive and endangered species. This proposal is an example of the positive solutions that can result when varied, bipartisan interests in a community come together to craft solutions that will work for everyone. All three of the counties involved in this legislation, Wheeler, Wasco and Jefferson, have endorsed this proposal as well as a number of user and recreation groups. I especially want to thank the Oregon Natural Desert Association, Young Life and Forrest Reinhardt, and Matt Smith for their role in developing this collaborative solution that will benefit all Oregonians.

Oregon's wildlands play an increasingly important role in the economic development of our state, especially in traditionally rural areas east of the Cascades. Visitors come from thousands of miles away to hike, fish, raft and hunt in Oregon's desert Wilderness. Beyond tourism, the rich quality of life and the diverse natural amenities that we enjoy as Oregonians are key to attracting new businesses to Oregon. The Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven Wilderness areas will help make sure that this rural area will enjoy the benefits that permanently connecting these disparate pieces of natural landscape will bring for generations to come.